TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nators against the very same Order-in-Appeal, which has upheld the confiscation of the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and penalties on them. The cross objection is filed by M/s M.B. Laminators against the appeal filed by the Revenue. Since all these 4 appeals are arising out of the findings recorded in the same impugned order, these are being disposed by a single order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the assessee herein M/s M.B. Laminators was a Central Excise registered unit and was visited by the Central Excise officers to verify the records. On physical verification of the stock, the officers found 73814 nos of HDPE circular laminated/un-laminated bags/sacks an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Ld. Counsel would take me through the Order-in-Original/Order-in-Appeal and also the Show Cause Notice. It is his submission that the partner of the appellant had specifically stated in his statement that the goods, though are finished and ready for dispatch, they are kept unrecorded in the statutory records, the supplies of which are made by them are to various sugar factories and fertilizer companies, who depute their personnel to the appellant-assessee's factory and do the checking of the finished goods which are ready for dispatch and on such checking and confirmation of the quality, dispatches take place. It is his submission of the ld. Counsel, that many a times, the checking done by the fertilizer companies or sugar factories,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factory premises, the appellant reversed the in-eligible CENVAT Credit and ld. Commissioner has correctly reduced the amount of penalty imposed on them. It is his submission that availment of CENVAT Credit to the extent as indicated in the invoices issued by an EOU was an inadvertent error and was rectified later. 5. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, would submit that non-imposition of penalty on the CENVAT Credit availed wrongly by the appellant is incorrect as the appellant being a duty paid unit, should be aware of the law. It is his submission that since the CENVAT Credit reversal has been upheld, the provisions of Rule 15(2) will come into play as there was a charge of suppression and mis-statement of the facts against the appellant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same along with interest. In my view, the findings of the first appellate authority that there was no willful suppression or mis-statement of facts with an intention to evade duty in this case as the invoices issued by EOU total amount indicated the total amount as an amount of duty paid by them. In my considered view, the first appellate authority was correct in coming to conclusion that the amount of penalty imposed on the appellant should be Rs.10,000/-. In view of the foregoing, I find that the Revenue's appeal in seeking enhancement of the penalty equal to the amount of CENVAT Credit ordered to be reversed is de-void of merits and is rejected. 10. As regards the confiscation of the goods which were found in the factory premises....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rations to clear the goods clandestinely without payment of duty. I find that Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Supreme Industries Ltd (supra), were considering an identical issue, wherein Lordship, at Para 9, has recorded the following:- 9. In the cases relied upon by Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, the factual aspects are some what different. In the case of Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 282, the goods were found without entry in the RG-I register after all the tests were conducted and it was in fully packed condition ready for transportation. Similarly in other cases stock found were completely ready for despatch and in most of the cases intention t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case are entirely different. In the case of Kirloskar Brothers (supra) intention to remove the air conditioners, and in fact, the removal of air conditioners were established. In the present case, stock was lying in the factory kept on hold which was to be subjected to quality control test. As such, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the assessing authority has incorrectly applied Rule 173-Q of the Rules by ignoring the facts that are available on record, so also the principles indicated in the trade notices referred to hereinabove issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate and the Hyderabad Collectorate in the matter of reaching of RG-I stage for similar items. Considering the totality of the ....